Creativity in Management - Review of Rooke & Torbert in HBR

How can managers and leaders develop themselves over time? What kind of learning process is needed? What does creativity mean in connection to management and leadership?

Rooke and Torbert (2005) wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review called "Seven Transformations of Leadership".

Their introduction:

“Different leaders exhibit different kinds of action logic – ways in which they interpret their surroundings and react when their power or safety is challenged. In our research of thousands of leaders, we observed seven types of action logics. At least effective for organizational leadership are Opportunist and Diplomat; the most effective, the Strategist and Alchemist. Knowing your own action logic can be the first step toward developing a more effective leadership style."

Then they present the following table with various leadership styles: 

                                                               

Action Logic	Characteristics	Strengths
Opportunist	Wins any way possible. Self-oriented; manipulative; “might makes right.”	Good in emergencies and in sales opportunities.
Diplomat	Avoids overt conflict. Wants   to belong; obeys group norms; rarely rocks the boat.	Good as supportive glue within an office; helps bring people together.
Expert	Rules by logic and expertise. Seeks rational efficiency.	Good as an individual contributor.
Achiever	Meets strategic goals. Effectively achieves   goals through teams; juggles managerial duties and   market demands.	Well suited to managerial roles; action and goal oriented.
Individualist	Interweaves competing personal and company action logics. Creates unique structures to resolve gaps   between strategy and performance.	Effective in venture and consulting roles.
Strategist	Generates   organizational and persona transformations. Exercises the power of mutual inquiry,   vigilance, and vulnerability for both the short and long term.	Effective as a   transformational leader.
Alchemist	Generates social   transformations. Integrates material, spiritual, and societal transformation.	Good at leading society-wide transformations

Interestingly, these styles are also like psychological developmental phases of children, Opportunist style being the worst one ;-)

The categorisation of Rooke and Torbert could perhaps integrate also personal styles (like shown by MBTI) and could allow utilisation of different styles in different situations?

Csikszentmihalyi (1997) sees highly creative people complex, able to change their way of action according to situation. He further lists following complexities aka counterparts:

1. Energetic vs. relaxed

2. Smart vs. naïve

3. Playful vs. disciplined

4. Imagination vs. rooted sense of reality

5. Extrovert vs. introvert

6. Ambitious vs. selfless

7. Masculine vs. feminine

8. Traditional vs. rebellious

9. Passionate vs. extremely objective

10. Sensitivity vs. unsensitivity

(Csikszentmihalyi, 137, 1997)

When we are talking about a managerial board, should this board consist of multiple manager
archetypes? Can a skilful manager (or leader) change his leadership style based on current situation?

Furthermore, what are those correlations between design thinking maturity and leadership maturity? Please, take a look at the Thinking and Making blog.

Finally, the leaders and managers have also been studied based on biographies. This kind of historiometric studies have revealed following leaders: charismatic, ideological and pragmatic. Each of these leader types has different behaviours in problem-solving, leader-follower interactions, communication and politics. (Mumford, 2006 <-- I recommed Mumford's latest book).

Any comments on these leadership styles?